Roles of theology and science from Re: [asa] Re: "Hidden" Theological Issues with Theistic Evolution

Some aspects of the tread seemed to be getting away from TE to the
broader issue of the relationship of theology and science. I would
basically agree with George's point, while fleshing it out a bit more.

Theology provides a basic (foundational, not simple) framework,
addressing fundamental questions. Both theological considerations and
everyday experience suggests that science is a widely applicable way
to investigate the physical properties of the universe and its
contents. This is one key role of theology in the practice of
science-indicating that it can and ought to be done. Science requires
that one assume that the physical world exists, that it behaves in
reasonably consistent patterns, that we can meaningfully investigate
those patterns, and that it is worthwhile to do so. Christianity and
related religions support these premises. Some other worldviews
disagree at points; e.g., a major failing of classical Greek attempts
at science was that experimenting tended to be viewed as work and work
as something for slaves, so ideas that sounded good but didn't match
actual measurement (like Aristotelian physics) would pass muster.
Atheism can hold these as ad hoc or post hoc assumptions, but Martin
Gardner has noted, there's no obvious logical reason to expect that
things will keep doing what they have-all available scientific
evidence is equally compatible with "The fundamental laws of physics
are unchanging" and "Some of the fundamental laws of physics will
change tomorrow."

Theology provides certain constraints on science, such as that it
ought to be done in an ethical manner and that certain types of
experiments are not ethical (e.g., rounding up one's least favorite
social/ethnic/religious/mental ability/etc. categories of humans to
use for experiments hazardous to their health.) As a whole, the Bible
says a lot more about how we ought to do things than about what to do.

Even if we conclude that the Bible indicates that a particular
scientific finding is the expected result in a particular situation,
that doesn't mean that the data will support it in all cases. We can
think about why there might be a discrepancy, but we can't dictate in
advance what will be found, and expectations about what ought to be
found can easily lead to misinterpretation and bias.

Dorothy L. Sayers especially argued that the theologically correct
approach to doing something is to do a good job without focusing on an
apologetic or other agenda. To write a book or to research or
whatever with a goal of promoting a particular view, rather than with
a primary goal of writing a good book, doing a good experiment, etc.,
struck her as dishonest. Now of course one may choose a topic that
ties into an apologetic issue, but it must be because it interests you
as a good topic for a book or a study, etc. For example, she found
people exasperating who thought that she must have selected saintly
actors to play in her theological plays. She wanted to have good
actors, physically compatible with the requirements of the part.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.